Post

More from @PaulbernalUK

Prof Paul Bernal

@PaulbernalUK

Jan 31

A few small points on ‘serious harm’, which was the crux of the Laurence Fox defamation actions. Firstly, the requirement for serious harm was added in the Defamation Act 2013 - the most recent reform of defamation law. 1/6

It was brought in specifically to make it harder to succeed in a defamation action. To stop trivial cases from succeeding. To help free speech. It adds an overall requirement before you even look at the words at issue. 2/6

The act says ‘A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.’ There are two parts to this. Is the harm ‘serious’, and did the statement ‘cause’ it. Both have to be shown *by the claimant* 3/6

Read 7 tweets

Prof Paul Bernal

@PaulbernalUK

Nov 28, 2023

A short and somewhat simplified thread on defamation law and the Laurence Fox case - and why it’s currently proceeding as it is. There are a number of key issues about the way the law works that need to be understood. 🧵 1/12

After Fox’s appearance on BBC’s Question Time in 2020, a number of people called him a racist on Twitter - and he responded by calling them paedophiles. They sued him for defamation for saying that, and he counter sued them for calling him a racist. 2/12

To count as defamatory, since the Defamation Act 2013, a statement has to cause ‘serious harm’ - which is why we’re hearing Fox describing all the jobs he’s lost as a result of being described as a racist. Significant loss of income would count as serious harm. 3/12

Read 12 tweets

Prof Paul Bernal

@PaulbernalUK

Oct 31, 2023

A question for @peston, @bbcnickrobinson, @bethrigby, @bbclauraK and other members of the ‘inner circle’ of political journalists. (Short thread) 1/6

As the COVID inquiry has gone on, it’s become increasingly evident that what was going on in Number 10 Downing Street was chaotic and disastrous in pretty much every way 2/6

What’s more, it’s clear that the chaos and disaster came from the top - and from the character and nature of Boris Johnson directly. You, and the rest of the inner circle clearly knew this - and knew his character and why this was inevitable. 3/6

Read 6 tweets

Prof Paul Bernal

@PaulbernalUK

Jul 23, 2023

Once upon a time there was a man who played golf rather well. He had a handicap of two. A golf club, exclusively for people with handicaps less than five, let him join. He was a bit of a tool: rude, boring, nasty about other members, but his game was good enough… 1/4

…and kept up the club’s standard well. After a few years, his standard declined - maybe it was the beer, maybe his age was catching up on him, maybe his sacking of his coach for being a foreigner, but for whatever reason his handicap went up and up. 2/4

And when the latest set of scorecards came in, his handicap was going to be ten. The club held a committee meeting - they regularly did - and his membership came up for review. He’d just had a particular bender and ranted about everything in a loud, angry voice… 3/4

Read 5 tweets

Prof Paul Bernal

@PaulbernalUK

May 4, 2023

A short thread on the Voter ID requirements, as I see the old myths are spreading again. Firstly, just to be completely clear, there’s plenty of evidence that the kind of voter fraud that this aims to prevent is *so* rare as to be negligible. It basically doesn’t happen. 1/8

The voter fraud that there *is* evidence of - though also relatively rare - surrounds postal voting, which the new Voter ID requirements do not address at all. This is a phantom menace, and should make it clear that the whole thing isn’t really about addressing a problem. 2/8

When people say ‘but everyone has photo ID anyway’ they’re also missing the point. There are an estimated 2-3 million people who don’t have the kind of photo ID that the rules accept - they may not be the people that *you* know, but that’s also part of the point…. 3/8

Read 11 tweets

Prof Paul Bernal

@PaulbernalUK

Mar 19, 2023

I see the ‘we’re criticised by both sides, so we must be doing OK’ analysis of the BBC is doing the rounds again. Please don’t do this - it’s a logical fallacy. Either or both sides criticising you may be wrong (and often are) or may be arguing in bad faith (and often are). 1/6

They may be wrong just by being wrong - but also because we are all *less* likely to see bias in our favour (it seems ‘right’) and *more* likely to see bias against us (it seems ‘wrong’), and hence focus on the bias against us, and think the bias is almost all against us. 2/6

They may be arguing in bad faith because they want to ‘win’ - and most importantly because they don’t want people to see bias that they like, and address it. Bad faith arguments are very common, and not just on the internet. They’ve always been a mainstay of politics 3/6

Read 6 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Prof Paul Bernal

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @PaulbernalUK

Prof Paul Bernal

Prof Paul Bernal

Prof Paul Bernal

Prof Paul Bernal

Prof Paul Bernal

Prof Paul Bernal

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!